tv [untitled] March 6, 2011 10:30am-11:00am PST
it, so we can model at to make it -- i am excited about this. i am appreciative for their support in this. the supervisor has introduced a board resolution. there is a lot of momentum here. unless there are other comments, i am prepared to move it. director nolan: second? okay. >> if we, you know, there are several comments made about a meeting to increase the meter. i agree with that because we have a younger, professional community and that are able to
taxi drivers that can't afford to pay. we have some that won't be able to pay for any kind of increase. director nolan: we have a motion and a second. all in favor? the aye's have it. item 12, we will hold tha until around 4:00. >> be required right turns on eastbound market street permanent including the existing a right turn only. there are few members of the public.
[reading names] >> good afternoon, chairman. and the director of the san francisco great streets project. i am here to speak in support of making these permanent. three things have brought me here today. as you may already know, market street serves about 13 transit lines and the transit system here in the city. it has a big impact throughout the city. we are a very data conscious organization. we have conducted a foot traffic counts to compare the years we
have done an increase over the course of this trial. they are also encouraging because they managed to work with other agencies, they are bringing more people. congratulations on that. finally, we have business owners up and down the street. we found a diversity of opinions including people that had no idea that it was happening. some people don't like it. others that like a, you have letters from supervisor chiu. i want to review things that will be on the record.
this is from the owner of a new coffee shop and wine bar on market street. i am all for decreasing [chime] -director nolan: thank you. >> i will submit this. >> elizabeth followed by tara houseman and neil patou. >> i'm elizabeth stamp. we support making permanent the right turns on market street. this has resulted in increased public transit speed and you have heard more people walking. increasing walking on market street means more eyes on the
street to increase personal safety. it is a concern by many folks. and more foot traffic that will support local businesses. while san francisco congratulates, we encourage you to make the pilot permanent. >> these are the last members of the public. >> you will hear from everybody that adores this program. the walkers, bicycle riders in transit. you will not hear from the people that have gotten tickets because of this. i am not affected. if i am not mistaken, these are
moving violations. i don't feel that the area is adequately signed. i think there is an awful lot going on. people don't get what is going on until they are in a situation where it is too late. it victimizes the visitors, and we don't know how many people it takes away from san francisco. we don't know how many people who decide to heck with it. i will shop at the mall were ever there is a parking spot. i realize there are many benefits to this. i am asking that you extend to the pilot program because there are people you can't hear from that have been really affected by this.
>> neil is the last person to turn in a speaker card. >> i am the community planner with the coalition. on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of people that ride a bike in the city of san francisco, i urge you to make these permanent. just to pull out a few points, i heard from a woman who has biked for many years. not until these required right turns went in did she feel safe an d comfortable. another woman often takes the s- line. i also want to applaud the efforts of the staff.
they put in this trial, which, as you know, making any change on market street is very difficult. through their work and through the constant flexibility and change, what we have today is a very strong improvement for taking transit in san francisco. i encourage you to make these changes permanent. >> i also want to urge you to make this permanent. you know by now that it saves a minute earth so on every bus ride in the city. it is probably easier to improve. the other thing that you want to work at, i hope you can figure out a way to enforce this. that is always a crucial issue.
>> i am in very strong support of this. when the trial started, i was not on the mta board. when i found out we were speeding up transit, that got my attention. we had a 3% increase. it is fabulous. another thing. when we got the e-mail, reading through them, it really completely put to bed the urban myth that the cyclists are young, strong men. i. cycle myself, and i am not a paragon of athletic ability. it really brought home to me the
same people that are on the streetcars. the same variety of ethnicities, and that should be out there. some of the ones that really struck out to me, there were a public -- a couple of public school teachers. we had a nanny that gets there by bicycle. the diversity struck me. director nolan: we have a motion. do we have a second? director heinicke: i won't address the biking nanny. but some nannies have to work on hills. director brinkman was taken by
the positive stuff and the opposition. i think people have gotten comfortable with that. is it the case that as we move to a more permanent and established system, that we will have the he were -- fewer pco's on this? >> definitely. right now, i don't believe there is a limit to manage this. everyone is pretty much agitated on the way that does intersections are designed.
-- indicated on the way that those intersections are designed. director nolan: we have a motion and a second. all those in favor say aye? the ayes have it. one more item. >> item 14, exactly. director nolan: will this take time? >> we only have two members of the public to speak. [laughter] >> maybe taking a break and getting a history. director nolan: a ten minute director nolan: a ten minute break? to new residential relevant reviewing existing exemptions revising discount rates for new
development projects that mr. parkin, amend the planning took to clarify provisions of existing legislation, and approved administration of the administrative appeals process. director nolan: i understand we had some communications. >> mr. chairman, it is clear that the owl -- that we normally pride ourselves on was not completed as it related to this item -- the outreach that we normally pride ourselves on was not completed as it related to this item. what was expected to be down by another agency was not done, at least was not done to a satisfactory degree, whether we have individuals who are supportive of this or not supportive of this item. it will be my suggestion that you give us an opportunity as a staff to go back out to meet with the public, meet with the developers who are concerned about this issue, and it will not be brought back before you until we have done that.
>> also our policy and governance committee -- >> yes, that would be a good place to start. director nolan: since people of given up time this afternoon to come here, we will be happy to hear your thoughts, but there will not be any action by the board this afternoon. with that, do we have some speakers? >> [reading names] >> i will come back when you are ready to have a presentation and make a decision. thank you. director nolan: thank you. good afternoon again. >> executive director with wok san francisco. -- walk san francisco. we support offering a discount to developers who do not build parking. all new developments obviously depend on the transportation
network to work, including residential developments, whose residents will obviously need to travel to get to work, to get to shopping, etc., and the more that residents and workers in the developers are able to get around on public transit, the more efficient and save our public streets will be, our city streets, so developers who do not build public parking and therefore do encourage public transit use should be rewarded by lightening the load on our transportation system. we believe that this is a smart step forward for connecting how we build to how we get around and also a smart step to make our city more sustainable and more safe. thank you. >> howard stroessner. good afternoon.
i'm only partially in support of this. it seems to continue an old feared that muni has that to will cost too much and will not be able to provide the service. i think that is the wrong way to go about it. to count bedrooms, that is not right. people need service. you have to provide it. on the other hand, the 50% discount on building -- on not building a garage is a good start. issue b 100%. it is not riders who destroy the system, but you are working -- except some who get on slowly, but you are working on that. when you move your car, you are impacting muni, and they should
be the concept you want to have when you're talking about parking fees and meter rates and meter times. you can constantly do this kind of thing. i hope that when you reconsider, that some of this will come up. i will come back and helped you more. i want to take another minute because it may have a much later, to talk about the school kids. i think it is nice to give away the 12,000 passes here probably is -- probably some of these are kids that jump on the back and do not pay anything, so it will be good to get them trained to have them get real passes and use the system, so a little more thought on this issue would be helpful. >> thank you so much. every city has a valiant to live. maybe you can only enjoyed 50,000 value of the city resources.
san francisco, you look in, 250,000, the public. they count in asia. they do not count in america. everybody is moving in to some town to enjoy the public resources. that is money we already put in and we build. so anybody living in, and they want to build a house in heywood or san francisco is very different. you should get it because they bring more people in the city, but they already make money as they run away. they make a profit. they do not count on the city. they do not put any investment in the city, so you have to charge with -- you have to charge them.
i do not understand, but you should get money. thank you. >> good afternoon. thank you for hearing us today. first off, thank you for moving it so we can review documents. it is important that we hear from people like myself who are builders in the city and stakeholders and the decisions that are made, we request documents, and we hope to get them and sit down with you and work with you. thank you. >> jonathan perlman. >> i'm not a builder. i'm an architect. this kind of fee, certainly, it affects a number of buildings that get built that are not built because they cannot afford them because the fees are so high, then i have less work, so it affects me directly.
just to make a comment about the people who take advantage of the city and run off to other towns. i live and work in the city. most of the people i work with, the developers i work with live and work in san francisco, and we love san francisco, but in our professions, it is getting harder to make a living because of the costs. a lot of my clients are single- family -- build single-family or two-family houses, and we are wondering why housing is so expensive in san francisco. this is one of the reasons. also, the whole issue of this apparently was not even that it out -- vetteed out with public hearings or no way see in the legislation still a couple of hours ago i think it's a shame, and i appreciate that this is being postponed till a later date. >> [reading names]
. director nolan: good afternoon. >> also an architect in the city. this is the most ill-conceived job killer i had ever seen. i'm just glad that we are going to get a chance to talk to you further about. if i have a client that builds a debt, they have to inform the lady and all the neighbors. we're just lucky that somebody saw the little blurb in the "examiner" about this. it affects a lot of people. if i had a client that build a new house, 5000 square feet, it would cost an additional $50,000 to that client, almost $10 a foot. that is just ridiculous. this is just a job killer at a time when we need jobs, not just here, but throughout the
country. everybody is talking about jobs, jobs, jobs. to add $10 a foot to a project is just not right. at this time, we should have a moratorium on all fees on projects if you ask me. all fees on residential should be off until the unemployment rate gets back to a reasonable level. thank you. director nolan: thank you. next speaker. good afternoon. >> good afternoon. i would just like to say that it is an extremely poorly written document that was submitted to the commission for consideration. two, i like your staff to really look at the impact report that was prepared by the planning
commission -- department for the planning commission on the last round of planning. in that report, there was a recommendation and statement that the impact fee for that area cannot be as high as the actual process because the development community is tapped out said that they can no longer afford to go beyond and development fees. also, in every planning district reasonably in the city, their impact fees aren't citywide for different types of infrastructure. what i see is that there are in pac fees by every single agency, and they really need to be coordinated so you know what the
taxes are on the developers. finally, i'm grateful that this commission is going to take this out and act on that after you have more information because i was extremely offended by one of your staff that said that it is this commission's policy not to have any out reach until after you acted on it today and it takes place after you take action and the time it goes to the board of supervisors. i realize i'm an immigrant, and a lot of the people that will testify before you are immigrants, but i do not think that our language ability is so bad that i misunderstood her statement. director nolan: thank you. next speaker. >> good evening, commissioners. to reiterate the last few speakers, if you have a product, you play -- pay approximately $11,000 per unit, the average
unit being 1000 square feet. if you have five units, $50,000. 10 units, $110,000, and we have to bear these costs. the industry is being crippled. we need jobs. we need people to create work. not put a hindrance on it. it is not even present today. it is a disgrace that this has been jammed through. i appreciate that you are continuing it, but let's look at it and everybody -- let everybody, all the stakeholders, get a say in the matter. director nolan: next speaker please. >> good afternoon. while i do not doubt with an
apartment with usually do on our reach, i would question with the q&a is for making sure that things happen. if we do not have quality assurance, at least the rest of us in the public really dowling the integrity, especially when we do not have legislation, it is something that is generating money for the department. i look at this and say that this is a complete -- we are being dropped as far as it not being a situation that is being brought to life. you want to talk about unemployment. everybody says we've got 17% unemployment in the state of california. try our industry. we cannot afford any more fees. there is stuff not getting built now. you have permits at a record low, and we want to add more money to that? we need a break in the building industry. you hear from every commission, every council, everybody that steps up here. we need jobs. we have families to feed.
i will take one last bus out there if it means that all the guys who work for me can come back to work because we can actually build something. i think a lot people would do that. i urge you to consider this and look at the real human impact of it. thank you. director nolan: thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i will keep my comments brief because my voice is going, but i do want to speak specifically to the process. it was my responsibility to coordinate and get my colleagues out here today. we heard about this at 4:00 yesterday afternoon from a reporter. he was calling for our opinions. you made a comment, the quality of out reach was not done on this item that is normally done on items such as this. i would beg to differ. it was not long ago that we were
before you with a similar experience. no outrage being done. we had to go back to the policy and governance committee, and eventually, through endless communication, we finally found ourselves in a position we were comfortable with going back to our members and making them aware of an increase. i was told that it is not staffed policy to do it out -- on items such as this by this body at this point in the process -- to do it out reach. it was recommended to us that we should go to the board of supervisors to engage in public comment. i think that is an absolute disgrace. i really do. i know our members are very concerned about jobs and the economy, but it is my responsibility to do the out region share with them what is going on, and -- my responsibility to do the responsibility to do the outreach and share with th